Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7550
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
MAYANK SONI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRMP No. 613 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jitendra Gupta
For the Respondents: Saurabh Sharma
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for quashing an FIR or charge sheet is limited to determining if a prima facie case is made out; it cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
Headnote:The petitioners sought the quashment of FIR No. 103/2025 and Charge Sheet No. 146/2025 registered under Section 308(2), 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners pressured the complainant for the repayment of a monetary debt and threatened to disclose his online betting activities to his family. The court found that the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. The primary issue was whether the dispute was purely civil in nature and whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court could be invoked to quash the proceedings. The court reasoned that the scope of interference for quashing is limited and that the court is "not required to embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact" at the stage of framing charges. The same is accordingly dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of allegations and registration of criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contention regarding civil nature of dispute vs. criminal intimidation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. limited scope of inherent jurisdiction to check for prima facie case. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. prima facie evidence of criminal acts precludes quashment. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition. (Para 20) |
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
27.02.2026
1. Heard Mr.Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Saurabh Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief(s):
“(A) It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to quash the registration of F.I.R no. 103/2025 vide F.I.R. dated 16/04/2025 registered by police station Rajhara district Balod chhattisgarh for the offence under section 308(2) of BNS and 4 of chhattisgarh debtors protection act 1937 against the petitioners, Charge sheet no. 146/2025, vide chargesheet dated 14/07/2025 for the offence under section 308(2), 238,3(5) Of BNS and 4 of chhattisgarh debtors protection act 1937 and order of taking cognizance dated 11/08/2025 in charge sheet no. 146/2025 for the offence under section 308(2), 238,3(5) Of BNS and 4 of chhattisgarh debtors protection act 1937, & furuther criminal proceeding in criminal case no. 1439 of 2025 in state of chhattisgarh versus Mayank soni & 01 other pending before the learned trial court pending before the learned trial court against the present petitioners, in the interest of justice.
(B) Any other relief/ order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Police Station Dallirajhara, District Balod, has registered Crime No. 103/2025 against the present petitioners for the alleged offences. The incident is stated to have occurred during the period from 22.02.2024 to 19.02.2025, and the FIR was registered on 16.04.2025. According to the prosecution, the complainant, Pankaj Soni, submitted a written complaint on 07.03.2024, upon which an inquiry was conducted and, thereafter, the FIR was registered on 16.04.2025. During the course of investigation, it was found that the complainant and petitioner No. 1 were engaged in the business of sale and purchase of gold and silver. It was further revealed that both were involved in online betting through a mobile application.
4. The complainant allegedly borrowed a total amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- from petitioner No. 1 on several occasions after incurring losses in betting. It is alleged that the complainant repaid a total amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- (including interest) through bank transfers and also mortgaged jewellery worth Rs. 37,00,000/- to applicant No. 1. Despite this, the present petitioners allegedly pressured the complainant to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- and, while abusing him, threatened to disclose his online betting activities to his family members.
5. On the basis of the said investigation, offences under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937 , were registered against the present petitioners vide FIR dated 16.04.2025 at Police Station Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
6. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet dated 14.07.2025 bearing Charge Sheet No. 146/2025 before the learned Trial Court for the offences under Sections 308(2), 238, and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937 . Subsequently, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences vide order dated 11.08.2025 in Criminal Case No. 1439/2025 titled State of Chhattisgarh v. Mayank Soni & Another. The matter is
